'Theory' has many applications. We are interested in the scientific one.

That was from a biology research journal.

Your ass is handed to you.

You are reduced to wisecracks.

It's an interesting study - what Darwinists do when I prove them wrong. Imam IAnus responds by saying he lost interest. Hiding responds by changing her statements and denying she made the original one. You respond with wisecracks which you think are funny, but are not at all.

Another psychological observation. You guys on here cannot compete with the likes of Michael Behe or myself, either intellectually or scientifically. So you have to resort to non-substantive ridicule. I might read up on the science of psychology to determine what pathology makes you do that. I might be able to help you.

I am open to a substantive, relevant response to the demonstration of Behe being correct on all points at Kitzmiller.

Be aware, if it is a lie or a wisecrack, as is your habit, I will likely not respond, since I have owned you in these exchanges.

And you never thanked me for providing a valid falsification for whale lineage, which you obviously could not do.

In SA, we celebrate his birthday/legacy by donating 67 minutes to public service, be it working at a soup kitchen for the homeless, visiting cancer patients, or simply picking up garbage in the neighbourhood.

<quoted text>Wow.'Evolution has no theoretical framework''Astrology is a valid scientific theory''Big Bang implies a creator'Dammit Buck.I am pretty aware of the low intellectual standards you set. I am pretty aware of how little you know of the topics you discuss. But damn... You stepped it up a notch.

Darwinism requires that the eye formed unguided and independently at least 40 times. In the study of statistics, the chance of that happening is far beyond what is agreed to be impossible.

But it's considered scientific fact.

You have a god need that deforms your thinking. What you consider impossible is anything that challenges that. Your uncorroborated data and conclusions cannot be trusted.

The scientists and mathematicians not only say that unguided evolution is possible, but also that there is no evidence for anything else.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this again, but nobody's arguing these issues except theists. The educated skeptics are mostly in agreement: the theory of evolution is correct in the main, and theistic objections are dishonest, and can be ignored.

You people don't seems to care about anything except justifying your god delusions. You don't care what damage you do in the process. You've set up think tanks to generate your propaganda and to inculcate it into young minds, and America is now a laughingstock, Hidingfromyou's evolution students hearing about Americans, to Behe featured on the Nova special on Kitzmiller, the world sees what American Christianity is doing to American children. You might as well just hit them in the head with a club.

Very happy Birthday to Nelson Mandela!In SA, we celebrate his birthday/legacy by donating 67 minutes to public service, be it working at a soup kitchen for the homeless, visiting cancer patients, or simply picking up garbage in the neighbourhood.http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2012/07/18/m...

Or buy some of the rights to video of his funeral being sold to highest bidders.

<quoted text>That was from a biology research journal.Your ass is handed to you.You are reduced to wisecracks.It's an interesting study - what Darwinists do when I prove them wrong. Imam IAnus responds by saying he lost interest. Hiding responds by changing her statements and denying she made the original one. You respond with wisecracks which you think are funny, but are not at all.Another psychological observation. You guys on here cannot compete with the likes of Michael Behe or myself, either intellectually or scientifically. So you have to resort to non-substantive ridicule. I might read up on the science of psychology to determine what pathology makes you do that. I might be able to help you.I am open to a substantive, relevant response to the demonstration of Behe being correct on all points at Kitzmiller.Be aware, if it is a lie or a wisecrack, as is your habit, I will likely not respond, since I have owned you in these exchanges.And you never thanked me for providing a valid falsification for whale lineage, which you obviously could not do.

Buck, honestly, there is nothing to gain from any argument with you. The only reson I do so, is because I have large parts of slow going at work (some of it simple procrastination).

The fact is, it is impossible to have any argument with you, about anything related to natural science.

Your affirming of really stupid ideas such as 'Astrology is a valid theory','whale evolution has been falsified without fossil evidence','Big Bang implies a creator''Evolution has no framework' etc only shows that either 1) You are just as bored as us and trying to kill the time by making stupid arguments, or 2) you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't really care to enter those discussions with you, much like I don't care to engage the man at the old age home about his claims that he was taken away by a space ship.

I resort to wisecracks, because when someone like you is trying to present a scientific argument, it is kind of like watching a monkey fuck a doorknob.

<quoted text>You have a god need that deforms your thinking. What you consider impossible is anything that challenges that. Your uncorroborated data and conclusions cannot be trusted.The scientists and mathematicians not only say that unguided evolution is possible, but also that there is no evidence for anything else.Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this again, but nobody's arguing these issues except theists. The educated skeptics are mostly in agreement: the theory of evolution is correct in the main, and theistic objections are dishonest, and can be ignored.You people don't seems to care about anything except justifying your god delusions. You don't care what damage you do in the process. You've set up think tanks to generate your propaganda and to inculcate it into young minds, and America is now a laughingstock, Hidingfromyou's evolution students hearing about Americans, to Behe featured on the Nova special on Kitzmiller, the world sees what American Christianity is doing to American children. You might as well just hit them in the head with a club.

I made no claim that unguided evolution is NOT possible.

And statistics is not a religious field.

You are arguing the issue, albeit poorly and incompetently, but claim it is only argued by theists.

<quoted text>Buck, honestly, there is nothing to gain from any argument with you. The only reson I do so, is because I have large parts of slow going at work (some of it simple procrastination).The fact is, it is impossible to have any argument with you, about anything related to natural science.Your affirming of really stupid ideas such as 'Astrology is a valid theory','whale evolution has been falsified without fossil evidence','Big Bang implies a creator''Evolution has no framework' etc only shows that either 1) You are just as bored as us and trying to kill the time by making stupid arguments, or 2) you really have no idea what you are talking about.I don't really care to enter those discussions with you, much like I don't care to engage the man at the old age home about his claims that he was taken away by a space ship.I resort to wisecracks, because when someone like you is trying to present a scientific argument, it is kind of like watching a monkey fuck a doorknob.

<quoted text>What I said:'scientific evidence for reincarnation'What she said I said:'reincarnation is a scientifically proven fact'Double Dumb, do you notice any difference in these two statements?I know you claimed that every different definition of theory means the same thing, except for Behe's. Maybe this explains it.But even you should see this distinction.Too much gay music and porn?

<quoted text>That was during the Devonian extinction - one of the mass extinctions.Evolution seems to go into overdrive at the brink of chaos, methinks.You see the same with other extinctions:- Devonian extinction brought forth Tiktaalik, meaning kingdom Animalia conquered the land- Permian/Triassic brought forth Archosaurs as the dominant species- Triassic/Jurassic extinction brought forth the dominance of the dinosaurs- K-T extinction brought forth the reign of social animals, mammalia

Yes.

Archæology rocks. No pun intended.

And I saw the younger Alvarez deliver a lecture at UPenn, back in the day.

Statistics is not a religious field, but one easily usable to deceive those unaware. In first year statistics, many of the tricks people try to use were explained to us, meaning for someone who actually had higher mathematics and statistics, we see through that very quickly.

Probability studies are one area were you are easily fooled.

Let me give you an example of what ID does:

In SA, to win the lotto, you need to score 6 numbers out of 49. The probability is thus 13.998 million (or thereabouts, I don't have my calculator handy) to one.

Now, what are the odds for a man losing his arm, having a white Volvo and 2 dogs win the lotto?

ID 'scientists' tries to factor the loss of limb, make of the car, breed of the dogs, type of job he does, length of his penis and how many cups of coffee he drinks a day into the equation.

They then get a very low probability, and therefore say "See! It's nigh impossible! Design is proved!"

<quoted text>Yeah. Right. I suspect you include Astrology in 'natural sciences' again?<quoted text>That is the proper one, based on fossil evidence.<quoted text>You don't have an idea what science is.<quoted text>That's the problem. Your ID people just look at the evidence and say 'Damn. That IS complex. Goddidit'<quoted text>Oh great. So people who believe Astrology is a valid science decides that the Whale hypothesis have been falsified. What's next? Proving that Santa Claus live in the North Pole?<quoted text>Lol. Your hacks do that without once mentioning a fossil find. I suppose you are stupid enough to fall for it.So what's the ID position? Whales are fish?<quoted text>Astrology ain't science. Neither is ID.

So now you are rejecting population genetics as science, too?

You are a true believer, Double-Gay.

Oh, and population genetics does rely on fossil evidence. It is a key feature of the falsification. I did not personally go out and find them, if that's what you're getting at.

You know nothing about science. Your education has failed you, and so has your faith.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.